Download MEDITERRANEA FISHERMAN

MEDITERRANEA
SERIE DE ESTUDIOS BIOLÓGICOS
2015 Época II Número especial
COMITÉ CIENTÍFICO:
G. U. CARAVELLO
S. G. CONARD
A. FARINA
A. FERCHICHI
A. A. RAMOS
1
st FISHERMAN
Con la colaboración de:
REGIONAL
CONFERENCE
Universitat d’Alacant
Universidad de Alicante
Invited talk by Daniel Pauly:
Official vs. reconstructed marine fisheries catches in the Western Indian
Im
- Early regist
- Registration
José L. Sánchez Lizaso
Closed areas for fisheries management:
How much is enough?
Índice
Abstract.............................................................................. 41
Résumé.............................................................................. 42
Introduction......................................................................... 43
Surface to be protected...................................................... 44
Bias in habitats protected................................................... 46
How to pay the cost of protection?..................................... 46
Conclusions........................................................................ 48
References......................................................................... 48
DOI: 10.14198/MDTRRA2015.ESP.03
Closed areas for fisheries management:
How much is enough?
José L. Sánchez Lizaso
University of Alicante. [email protected]
Abstract
Closed areas are becoming more and more important for fisheries management. Closed areas benefits for stock enhancement and biodiversity conservation are known but, in most
countries, surface closed to fisheries is up to the moment too
small. While it has been proposed to protect 10% of the marine environment for biodiversity objectives, several studies
point that, for fisheries enhancement, it will be necessary to
close at least 20% of marine environment to fisheries. Moreover in most countries, closed areas are biased to protect
some particular habitat like shallow water reefs and it will be
necessary that the protection expand to include all different
ÍNDICE
41
José L. Sánchez Lizaso
marine habitats. A crucial point to expand the network of marine protected areas is the financing sustainability of protected areas. Different ways to obtain the management budget
for protected areas are discussed.
Keywords: Closed areas, Fisheries Management, Stock enhancement, MPAs
Résumé
La fermeture de zones revêt une importance croissante dans
le cadre de la gestion des activités de pêche. Les avantages
que procurent les zones fermées pour l’amélioration des stocks
et la préservation de la biodiversité sont connus, mais dans la
plupart des cas, la superficie fermée par les pays reste à ce
jour bien trop limitée. Bien qu’il ait été proposé de protéger 10
% de l’environnement marin en vue d’atteindre les objectifs
liés à la biodiversité, diverses études indiquent que dans le
cas de la gestion des activités de pêche, il sera nécessaire de
procéder à des clôtures d’au moins 20 % de l’environnement
marin. De plus, la majorité des pays définissent les zones de
manière inégale pour protéger un type d’habitat spécifique
tel que les récifs d’eau peu profonde ; il conviendra d’étendre
la protection et inclure tous les différents habitats marins. La
viabilité financière des zones protégées est un point essentiel
ÍNDICE
42
Closed areas for fisheries management:
How much is enough?
à l’extension du réseau ou de la réserve marine. Différentes
méthodes de collecte de fonds aux fins de maintenance des
zones protégées sont en cours de discussion.
Introduction
C
losed areas to fisheries, also called Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), are becoming more and more important for fisheries management. Although there are
some differences between both terms (MPAs and closed areas) in this paper they have been considered with the same
meaning: an area in which fisheries are completely or partially
restricted. Benefits of closed areas for stock enhancement and
biodiversity conservation are known (Gell & Roberts, 2002).
The cessation or reduction of fishing mortality in marine protected areas (MPAs), promote an increase in abundance and
mean size and age of previously exploited populations, that
produce an increase in the offspring production and the spillover effect to open areas (Sánchez Lizaso et al 2000, Goñi et
al 2008, López-Sanz et al 2011). Benefits for fisheries usually
are observed with an increase in effort and catches in the vicinity of MPAs (Goñi et al 2008, Forcada et al 2009) changes
in the opinion of fishermen with increased support to MPAs
(Badalamendi et al 2000) or some socioeconomic indicators
(Ramos et al 1992; Sánchez Lizaso & Giner, 2001)
ÍNDICE
43
José L. Sánchez Lizaso
Surface to be protected
MPAs are effective for fishery enhancement and conservation objectives, but the relevant question for managers is the
proportion of the area of distribution of each population that
has to be protected. It is necessary to achieve equilibrium
between biomass accumulation inside and biomass export to
open areas (Sánchez Lizaso et al 2000).
Surface to be protected is dependent on the biology of species. Although small protected areas have been effective for
the protection of low mobility species, usually species with
more mobility need larger closed areas (Ramos et al 2002,
Halpern, 2003).
One of the targets of the Convention on Biological Biodiversity is that, by 2020, at least 10% of coastal and marine areas, especially areas of particular importance for biodiversity
and ecosystem services, are conserved through effectively and equitably managed, ecologically representative and
well-connected systems of protected areas and other effective area-based conservation measures, and integrated into
the wider landscape and seascape (https://www.cbd.int/sp/
targets/rationale/target-11/). Currently, about 209000 protected areas cover 15.4% of the planet’s terrestrial and inland
water, and 3.4% of the oceans. 8.4% of all marine areas withÍNDICE
44
Closed areas for fisheries management:
How much is enough?
in national jurisdiction (0-200 nautical miles) are covered with
protected areas, while only 0.25% of marine areas beyond
national jurisdiction are protected (Juffe-Bignoli et al 2014).
However 10% may not be enough and, for fisheries management, best results have been observed with closed areas
that cover higher surface. In Philippines good results have
been obtained with closed areas that cover 10-25% of fishing grounds (Rus & Alcala 1999). Moreover in some fisheries,
it has been stablished as limit reference point, that Spawning Stock Biomass (SSB) or SSB per recruit (SSP/R) do not
fall below some limit relative to the unfished level (Gabriel &
Mace, 1999). One way to achieve this objective is to protect a
significant proportion of the distribution area of each species
(from 20 to 35%). On the other hand, a protected area that
covers 65% of fishing grounds, increased CPUE but reduced
the number of fishers and catches in Kenia (McClanahan &
Kaunda-Arara, 1996).
It also has to be considered that some part of protected areas
may be on partial protection status with some fishing allowed
inside or may be not effectively implemented (paper parks).
It is important to note that the benefits for fisheries are related with the effective reduction in fishing mortality. In this
sense, when we try to estimate surface effectively protected
ÍNDICE
45
José L. Sánchez Lizaso
we should consider only surface completely closed to fishing
and effectively implemented. Partial protected areas should
be weighted by the reduction of fishing mortality that they allow and paper parks should not be considered at all.
Bias in habitats protected
In many countries MPAs are biased to protect some particular habitat (i.e. coastal reefs). These habitats usually have
higher biodiversity or are submitted to more treat. However,
the protection of these habitats only benefits species that use
these habitats as part of their life cycles and that usually are
targeted by artisanal fisheries. But also species that live in
low diversity habitats, like sandy/muddy bottoms, may benefit
from spatial closures. In fact this low diversity habitats usually
support the most important fisheries. The target of surfaces to
be protected has to achieve all marine habitats, from coastal
to open seas, to benefit all marine species.
How to pay the cost of protection?
If the target is to expand the network of closed areas to fisheries and enforce them effectively, the main constraint in many
countries is the financial sustainability of protection (Balmford
et al 2004). Inadequate funding is one of the primary reasons
ÍNDICE
46
Closed areas for fisheries management:
How much is enough?
that many MPAs exist as paper parks. Once a MPA is legally
established, sufficient funding is rarely allocated to fulfill its
mission (Thur 2010). Some protected areas maybe supported
by donors at the beginning but donors are unlikely, however, to sustain finances for MPA management in the long-term
(McClanahan, 1999). In some countries like Spain, management costs are assumed exclusively by the public administration, which implies that, at this moment, there are more
areas waiting the protection than allowable public funding for
expanding the network of protected areas.
Given the limitations on financing coastal protection and resource management, the use of alternative mechanisms to
generate funding should be considered (Edwards, 2009).
Since there are winners and losers of protection (Badalamendi et al 2000), one alternative is that winners pay the cost
of protection. At least for coastal protected areas, revenues
produced by user fees may contribute significantly to management cost. For example, MPAs in the Red Sea produce
20 times more revenues than management costs, and these
revenues are used for maintain the whole network of national parks (including the terrestrial ones), some of them with
low number of visitors (Samy et al 2011). It has also been
observed that a significant percentage of visitors of some ma-
ÍNDICE
47
José L. Sánchez Lizaso
rine protected areas, will accept support financially through
fees their management (Thur, 2010; Durgun, 2013).
But, how to pay enforcement in high sea with no visitors? Enforcement of closed areas in the high sea may be easier and
cheaper than coastal areas since usually fishing is done by
larger vessels that use Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) and/
or Automatic Identification System (AIS) (Mazzini 2013).
Conclusions
–– MPAs are effective for protecting marine biodiversity and
rebuilding stock biomass
–– At least 20 to 30% of all marine habitats have to be closed
to fisheries
–– Sustainable financing is needed to ensure enforcement
References
BADALAMENTI, F., RAMOS, A.A., VOULTSIADOU, A., SÁNCHEZ
LIZASO, J.L., D’ANNA, G., PIPITONE, C., MAS, J., RUIZ
FERNANDEZ, J.A., WHITMARSH, D. and RIGGIO. S. (2000)
Cultural and socio-economic impacts of Mediterranean marine protected areas. Environmental Conservation, 27, 110-125.
ÍNDICE
48
Closed areas for fisheries management:
How much is enough?
BALMFORD, A., GRAVESTOCK, P., HOCKLEY, N., MCCLEAN, C.
J., & ROBERTS, C.M. 2004. The worldwide costs of marine protected areas PNAS 101 (26): 9694-9697.
BOHNSACK, J.A. 1990. The Potential of Marine Fishery Reserves for
Reef Fish Management in the US Southern Atlantic. NOAA Technical
Memo NMFS-SEFC-261. National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Miami.
DURGUN, D. 2013. Estimation of user fees as a co-financing source
for two Spanish Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas. Master
Thesis University of Alicante 49 pp.
EDWARDS, P.E.T. 2009. Sustainable financing for ocean and coastal
management in Jamaica: The potential for revenues from tourist
user fees Marine Policy 33: 376-385.
FORCADA A., VALLE C., BONHOMME P., CRIQUET G., CADIOU
G., LENFANT P., SÁNCHEZ-LIZASO J. L. 2009. Effects of habitat on spillover from marine protected areas to artisanal fisheries.
Marine Ecology Progress Series; 379: 197-211.
GABRIEL, W.L. and MACE, P.M. 1999. A review of biological reference
points in the context of the precautionary approach. Proceedings,
5th NMFS NSAW. NOAA Tech. Memo. NMFS-F/SPO-40:34:45
GELL, F.R. and C.M. ROBERTS. 2002. The Fishery Effects of Marine
Reserves and Fishery Closures. WWF-US, 89 pp.
GOÑI R., ADLERSTEIN, S., ALVAREZ-BERASTEGUI, D., A.
FORCADA, O. REÑONES, G. CRIQUET, S. POLTI, G. CADIOU,
ÍNDICE
49
José L. Sánchez Lizaso
C. VALLE, P. LENFANT, P. BONHOMME, A. PÉREZ-RUZAFA, J.
L. SÁNCHEZ-LIZASO, J. A. GARCÍA-CHARTON, G. BERNARD,
V. STELZENMÜLLER, S. PLANES (2008) Spillover from six western Mediterranean marine protected areas: evidence from artisanal
fisheries. Marine Ecology-Progress Series 366, 159-174.
HALPERN, B.S. 2003. The impact of marine reserves: do reserves
work and does reserve size matter? Ecological Applications, 13(1)
Supplement: S117–S137.
JUFFE-BIGNOLI, D., BURGESS, N.D., BINGHAM, H., BELLE,
E.M.S., DE LIMA, M.G., DEGUIGNET, M., BERTZKY, B.,
MILAM, A.N., MARTINEZ-LOPEZ, J., LEWIS, E., EASSOM,
A., WICANDER, S., GELDMANN, J., VAN SOESBERGEN, A.,
ARNELL, A.P., O’CONNOR, B., PARK, S., SHI, Y.N., DANKS,
F.S., MACSHARRY, B., KINGSTON, N. (2014). Protected Planet
Report 2014. UNEP-WCMC: Cambridge, UK.
LÓPEZ-SANZ, À., STELZENMÜLLER, V., MAYNOU, F., SABATÉS,
A. 2011 The influence of environmental characteristics on fish larvae spatial patterns related to a marine protected area: The Medes
islands (NW Mediterranean). Estuarine, Coastal and Shelf Science
92: 521-533.
MAZZINI, M. 2013; Análisis de la distribución del esfuerzo pesquero de la flota arrastrera en el área contigua a la Zona de Veda
Permanente de la Zona Económica Exclusiva Argentina. Master
Thesis University of Alicante 91 pp.
ÍNDICE
50
Closed areas for fisheries management:
How much is enough?
MCCLANAHAN, T.R. and KAUNDA-ARARA, B. (1996) Fishery
Recovery in a Coral-Reef Marine Park and Its Effect on the Adjacent
Fishery. Conservation Biology 10, 1187-1199.
MCCLANAHAN,TR. 1999. Is there a future for coral reef parks in poor
tropical countries?. Coral Reefs; 18: 321-325.
RAMOS ESPLÁ, A.A., SÁNCHEZ-LIZASO, J.L. and BAYLE, J. T.
(1992) Impact biologique et économique de la Réserve marine de
Tabarca (Alicante, Sud-Est de l’Espagne). Medpan News, Fr., 3:
pp. 59- 66.
RAMOS-ESPLÁ, A. A., VALLE-PÉREZ, C, BAYLE-SEMPERE, J.T
Y SÁNCHEZ-LIZASO, J.L. (2004). Áreas Marinas Protegidas
como herramientas de Gestión Pesquera en el Mediterráneo (Area
COPEMED). Serie Informes y Estudios COPEMED nº 11.
RUS G. R; ALCALA A. C. 1999. Management histories of Sumilon
and Apo Marine Reserves, Philippines, and their influence on national marine resource policy Coral Reefs 18: 307-319.
SAMY, M., SÁNCHEZ LIZASO, J. L., and FORCADA, A. (2011).
Status of marine protected areas in Egypt. Animal Biodiversity and
Conservation, 34(1), 165-177.
SÁNCHEZ LIZASO, J.L. and GINER, C. (2001) Estudio comparativo
de la flota artesanal de Tabarca. In Actas de las I jornadas internacionales sobre reservas marinas. Murcia 24 al 26 de marzo 1999.
Ministerio de Agricultura, Pesca y Alimentación, Madrid, Spain. pp.
227-232.
ÍNDICE
51
José L. Sánchez Lizaso
SÁNCHEZ LIZASO, J.L., GOÑI, R., REÑONES, O., GARCÍACHARTÓN, J.A., GALZIN, R., BAYLE, J.T., SÁNCHEZ-JEREZ,
P., PÉREZ-RUZAFA, A. y RAMOS, A.A. 2000. Density dependence in marine protected populations: A review. Environmental
Conservation, 27: 114-158.
THUR, S. M. 2010. User fees as sustainable financing mechanisms
for marine protected areas: An application to the Bonaire National
Marine Park Marine Policy 34: 63-69.
ÍNDICE
52